Will the Supreme Court stop Trump from Firing the Ethics Watchdog?

[Anonymous]

Who thinks the Roberts Court won't stop Trump from doing much of anything, let alone firing an ethics watchdog?

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/16/us/trump-supreme-court-special-counsel.html

First Test of Trump’s Power to Fire Officials Reaches Supreme Court
The court’s conservative majority may be receptive to the argument that presidents have unlimited power to remove leaders of independent agencies.

In the first case to reach the Supreme Court arising from the blitz of actions taken in the early weeks of the new administration, lawyers for President Trump asked the justices on Sunday to let him fire a government lawyer who leads a watchdog agency.

The administration’s emergency application asked the court to vacate a federal trial judge’s order temporarily reinstating Hampton Dellinger, the head of the Office of Special Counsel. Mr. Dellinger leads an independent agency charged with safeguarding government whistle-blowers and enforcing certain ethics laws. The position is unrelated to special counsels appointed by the Justice Department.

“This court should not allow lower courts to seize executive power by dictating to the president how long he must continue employing an agency head against his will,” the administration’s filing said.

The statute that created the job now filled by Mr. Dellinger, who was confirmed by the Senate in 2024, provides for a five-year term and says the special counsel “may be removed by the president only for inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.” But a one-sentence email to Mr. Dellinger on Feb. 7 gave no reasons for terminating him, effective immediately.

[Anonymous]

They will probably rule they the congress cannot make a law that prevents the President from firing people

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They will probably rule they the congress cannot make a law that prevents the President from firing people

It does seem that all three branches are compromised. I fear that eventually violence will be the only answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They will probably rule they the congress cannot make a law that prevents the President from firing people

But isn’t the charge that the court was too LOW in status, not that Congress couldn’t make the law. I mean supposedly a law is a law and THAT is what the ruling from the lower court was about, not about the power of a lower ranked court to over ride the president.

The LAW should be the thing that matters, not the ranking of the court or else everything will be up in the air. Wouldn’t it follow that any ruling could be thrown out because the president didn’t okay it or the court ranked too low.

[Anonymous]

Just fyi, that isn’t the ethics watchdog. That would be the head of the Office of Government Ethics (who was also fired but that position bas no statutory removal protections against firing). This one is the head of the Office of Special Counsel, which investigates federal employee whistleblower retaliation complaints and complaints of transgressions of other hiring laws, ie, nepotism, political bias, non-merit based hiring.

OSC can bring cases before MSPB. Trump also fired one of the three MSPB members who’s also suing but is a week or so behind in terms of the lifecycle of the case.

[Anonymous]

I have hope in Roberts and Barrett to do the right thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They will probably rule they the congress cannot make a law that prevents the President from firing people

It does seem that all three branches are compromised. I fear that eventually violence will be the only answer.

You and what army?

If only there was a right to keep and bear arms that could not be infringed that could be used in the event of tyranny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They will probably rule they the congress cannot make a law that prevents the President from firing people

It does seem that all three branches are compromised. I fear that eventually violence will be the only answer.

Absolutely not. Violence is NOT the answer. I agree we seem to be losing our country, but if we resort to violence then we are the ones damaging it. If our country is to remain free, we cannot be a people that employ violence, in doing do we sacrifice the very principles we’d be fighting for and lose all moral authority. Not to mention, from a purely practical side, our government controls the most powerful military the world has ever seen, and Republicans are the party that likes guns.

If our freedom is lost, then personal sacrifice may be required. Think of the impact that Gandhi had with his nonviolent methods, or the civil rights marches of the ‘60s. Even the lone, anonymous, “Tank Man” from Tiananmen Square left an indelible mark on the world in a single moment that China, one of the world’s superpowers remains afraid of more than 30 years later. Hurting others to get your way is cowardly and evil. Are you prepared to put yourself on the line for your beliefs?

[Anonymous]

Tankman is still dead, and democracy hasn't come to China

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who thinks the Roberts Court won't stop Trump from doing much of anything, let alone firing an ethics watchdog?

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/16/us/trump-supreme-court-special-counsel.html

First Test of Trump’s Power to Fire Officials Reaches Supreme Court
The court’s conservative majority may be receptive to the argument that presidents have unlimited power to remove leaders of independent agencies.

In the first case to reach the Supreme Court arising from the blitz of actions taken in the early weeks of the new administration, lawyers for President Trump asked the justices on Sunday to let him fire a government lawyer who leads a watchdog agency.

The administration’s emergency application asked the court to vacate a federal trial judge’s order temporarily reinstating Hampton Dellinger, the head of the Office of Special Counsel. Mr. Dellinger leads an independent agency charged with safeguarding government whistle-blowers and enforcing certain ethics laws. The position is unrelated to special counsels appointed by the Justice Department.

“This court should not allow lower courts to seize executive power by dictating to the president how long he must continue employing an agency head against his will,” the administration’s filing said.

The statute that created the job now filled by Mr. Dellinger, who was confirmed by the Senate in 2024, provides for a five-year term and says the special counsel “may be removed by the president only for inefficiency, neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.” But a one-sentence email to Mr. Dellinger on Feb. 7 gave no reasons for terminating him, effective immediately.

Yes, the Supreme Court believes in high ethical standards and anti-corruption.

[Anonymous]

No, they're under Trump's heel

[Anonymous]

No. That's why Trump & Co. aren't upset by the lower court rulings that the EOs aren't lawful. They know they'll just appeal up to the SC and get the ruling they want.

The US Govt is literally powerless. The founders thought they'd created a perfect system, but they never accounted for someone having as much wealth as Musk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They will probably rule they the congress cannot make a law that prevents the President from firing people

It does seem that all three branches are compromised. I fear that eventually violence will be the only answer.

Absolutely not. Violence is NOT the answer. I agree we seem to be losing our country, but if we resort to violence then we are the ones damaging it. If our country is to remain free, we cannot be a people that employ violence, in doing do we sacrifice the very principles we’d be fighting for and lose all moral authority. Not to mention, from a purely practical side, our government controls the most powerful military the world has ever seen, and Republicans are the party that likes guns.

If our freedom is lost, then personal sacrifice may be required. Think of the impact that Gandhi had with his nonviolent methods, or the civil rights marches of the ‘60s. Even the lone, anonymous, “Tank Man” from Tiananmen Square left an indelible mark on the world in a single moment that China, one of the world’s superpowers remains afraid of more than 30 years later. Hurting others to get your way is cowardly and evil. Are you prepared to put yourself on the line for your beliefs?

That is silly and defeatist. Of course you exhaust all other options first, but if the oligarchs and congresspeople start fearing their own personal Luigis…well, ok.

The army thing is also silly. People have resisted armies using asymmetrical warfare since the beginning of time, and you assume that the army as a whole would follow illegal orders.

Lastly, it’s humorous to assume that a subset of republicans with guns are going to do anything but cower. It’s what they do. They are children that are afraid of EVERYTHING. They will hide under their beds in urine stained underoos.

It’s completely stupid for people to live under tyranny when they don’t have to.

[Anonymous]

"The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that, when a cause is required to remove a public employee, due process is necessary to determine if that cause has been met. Neither Congress nor the President has the power to ignore or waive due process." [U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, May 2015.]

[Anonymous]

Fires The IGs
"Suspends" the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
Wants to fire the OSC

I'm sensing a pattern here.